Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Even with no annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral trait: the value is not the suburb's own days on market but the median across its broader GCCSA region. This prevents a likely misunderstanding and is the main behavioral context needed for a simple read-style tool. It does not mention null handling or time periods, but the output schema reduces that burden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no filler. The metric and geographic scope are front-loaded, and the comparison-to-sibling note earns its place as actionable guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter benchmark lookup tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential decision-making information: what is measured, at what geographic level, and which related endpoint to compare against. No critical invocation detail is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate. It explains that suburb_name is used to locate the suburb's greater region for aggregation, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not give format details, examples, or validation expectations for the single parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource (median days on market) and the geographic scope (the suburb's greater GCCSA region), which distinguishes it from suburb-level market tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns,' but the metric and scope are unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description tells the agent to compare this result with the suburb-level days-on-market endpoint, which makes it clear that this is the regional benchmark variant. It does not spell out formal when/when-not conditions, but the GCCSA qualifier and comparison hint provide sufficient context for selecting it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.